What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Val Nav 2000 Issues

Timberwolf

Well Known Member
I'm starting this thread to try to get some data points for those out there with a Val Nav 2000 radio. If you or any buddies have one installed, I'd love to hear if you have issues.

I'm seeing the needle swing when I transmit on a comm radio. It is essentially unusable for an approach. I'm in comms with Val through email and they are pointing the finger at the radio install, however I don't believe that to be the case since it didn't effect the KX-155 and it happens on both radios. So for anyone else out there that has seen any such issue, please post up so we can try to sort this out and get to the bottom of it.
 
NAV2000

The glideslope/localizer reception on my unit works fine, but I've never been able to get satisfactory VOR reception. Sent it back twice for bench tests and they said it was good. They've suggested that my Bob Archer antenna is not tuned property, but the same antenna works fine with the VAL INS429 I recently installed. Could be something else regarding my installation.

Radio problems are the worst! Good luck with yours.

John
 
Last edited:
I'm aware of two users who both report very poor VOR reception. Both have "gone the extra mile" in troubleshooting to prove the issue is the radio and not the airplane. I have helped in both troubleshooting efforts and can vouch for the validity of the testing they performed - in both instances the VAL NAV 2000 clearly has poor VOR receive sensitivity.

One user resigned himself to using the VAL NAV 2000 simply as an ILS receiver since he has another VOR receiver installed.

The other user returned the VALNAV 2000 for a refund and bought a Narco 122 (which works perfectly with the exact same antenna/coax/splitter installation where the NAV 2000 was deaf as a doorknob!). VOR receive range with the VAL radio was ~ 10 miles and ~70 miles with the NAV 122.
 
.... If you or any buddies have one installed, I'd love to hear if you have issues...

I have one issue but it's not the same as yours. I'm using it with a homebrew Bob Archer-style antenna in a wingtip with 60-mile range (plus or minus, depending on altitude) along Victor airways. The ILS function works well. I cannot recall any RFI from my comm radio but I do not transmit very much. I do notice audible reception of nearby FM broadcast stations on approaches at times (and that is not the sign of a well-designed receiver). It doesn't seem to affect the bearing pointer/CDI. Overall, I'm fairly pleased with the value I receive from the unit.

My issue is the unit's propensity to "brown out" when the bus voltage drops below about 10V while cranking the engine. Once the engine is started and the bus voltage rises, the radio is locked up and I am forced to cycle its power to make it functional again. The low bus voltage is an artifact of the heavy current load of my starter motor and my aft-located battery but I can live with it.
 
Last edited:
All good replies. I'm going to do a little more troubleshooting to see if I can get to the bottom of this, but I personally believe it is something within the radio and has to do with bonding/grounding/shielding internal to the radio itself. I sent this email to Jim Harr, the gentleman at VAL:

Jim,

Thanks for the reply. I don't quite agree that the garmin install is the culprit. I've spoken to at least 3 others with the exact same issue with their Val Nav. I was able to fly this past weekend and verify that it is across the spectrum of freqs for both comm and nav. Of course while shooting an approach the needle swings are much larger; which makes sense. If this was a Garmin issue, the same thing should have shown up with the King radio. Just to verify, I did switch the coax from one comm radio to my other radio (GTR200 and GX65) and it's the same on both. Do you have a recommendation on the next step I can take to narrow this issue down? After having a few other people chime in with the exact same issue on Vans Forums, I do not believe this to be an isolated issue. Thanks

Shane


to which Jim replied...

Hi Shane,

Not that I have any experience in the installation of avionics after my 30 plus years, but if a transmitter is getting into other avionics such as a NAV it is because the RF energy is being reflected back into the aircraft rather than being radiated off the antenna. Or the antennas are too close to each other. Without a threw line watt meter or a spectrum analyzer it will be hard to tell which. Most of the time I have found it to be reflected power off the antenna systems. Just because the KX 155 worked on a given antenna doesn’t mean the next radio installed on that antenna will have the same performance. I have not heard any complaints that COMs are interfering with our NAVs until now. Our NAVs have all of the cross frequency isolation that every other NAV receiver on the market has. What model is the COM antenna and where is it located?

Jim


Now, I think it's bad business and customer service to assume my credentials and to have a condescending tone. I've seen plenty of jobs done by people with "years" of service that could have been done better by a child. Years of installing radios doesn't mean you have a good grasp on RF theory, but I digress. I also think it's odd how he is assuming it is an issue with the VSWR of the Garmin, and no other possibilities exist. Apparently he is unaware of other forms of EMI such as RF coupling.

Anyways if I have time this weekend I will try a few things like isolating the power supply to the Nav radio and removing the nav radio audio output to see if I can narrow the source down. At this point I won't have any further contact with the company outside of requesting a return label. It's a shame as the radios are made in the US and I was rather impressed with the billet aluminum case.
 
Last edited:
life ain't easy

These type of avionics probs can be a challenge, for sure.

Well I have a Nav 2000 and a manual in front of me as I type. I notice that the wiring diag shows only the OBS resolver wires shielded, and then, only grounded at the far end. Maybe that is all that this unit requires, but for RF shielding, best practice is to ground shields early and often. That is ground both ends of the shield with as short a connection as possible and do it at both ends of the cable. I have noticed that Garmin install instructions are almost anal about this point, maybe with good reason.

Regarding the KX155 working OK, some designs may exhibit much higher immunity to certain interferences than specs require. Keep that in mind.

So, back to some basic analysis. RF could be feeding through the wiring under the panel - think inadequate shielding, bad, leaky coax, loose coax shield connector. Stuff might have moved or been loosened during the equipment swap.

The 2nd main interference path would be antenna to antenna. I was flabbergasted once seeing 3 watts on my Bird 43 watt meter on the wrong antenna cable while testing a transmitter, Cessna 206 I think. The point is that if antennas are too close, gobs of power go down the wrong hole, enough to effect performance. Also, in some cases, a passive device like an ELT can then generate spurious signals. The old KX145 had to have a mod for that very reason.

BTW, you did not describe your installation. antenna type, placement, etc. I assumed that you are driving an indicator head, not a digital connection to an EFIS, etc. a la 2000R.
Also, do you get interference chasing a VOR needle as well?
 
Cumulo, all good points. I've got 2 comant CI-122's mounted under the fuse up under the plane in front of the spar. The Nav antenna is a CI-157P mounted under the horizontal stab. The radio literally only has a few connections, power, ground, RS-232 to the G3X and audio into the GTR-200.

I too noticed the shielding differences vs the Garmin way. I did not ground the shields at the Val end for RS-232 or the audio, but plan to change that. As well, I have a hunch that the interference may be coming through the audio circuit, and is inducing the interference. Since the GTR-200 has an internal audio panel, I've been using that for the Nav radio and the Apollo both. I'm thinking there is no shielding in the Nav on the audio side and it is somehow backfeeding into it. If so, a simple switch will get wired in for the times when I need to hear the Nav audio.

No indicator head and straight to the G3X on this install. Coax is all tight with no nicks or other anomalies that would prevent satisfactory operation. I do get the same interference with the VOR.
 
I'm starting this thread to try to get some data points for those out there with a Val Nav 2000 radio. If you or any buddies have one installed, I'd love to hear if you have issues.

I'm seeing the needle swing when I transmit on a comm radio. It is essentially unusable for an approach. I'm in comms with Val through email and they are pointing the finger at the radio install, however I don't believe that to be the case since it didn't effect the KX-155 and it happens on both radios. So for anyone else out there that has seen any such issue, please post up so we can try to sort this out and get to the bottom of it.

Shane,

Did you ever get the problems sorted out with your Val Nav 2000? I?m considering adding this radio to my panel, but I want to make sure it?ll play well with all of my Garmin equipment. This will be a retrofit in my panel and I?d really like avoid installing it all together if I don?t ?need? it. So, first and foremost, I the main question that I should be asking is....do I ?need? a Nav radio?

My panel includes two Garmin G3x touch screens along with a GTN 625. I?m currently just a VFR pilot but I?m planning on doing my IFR training in my -7 once it completed. So the question for you IFR rated guys out there; do I ?need? a Nav radio since I have a WAAS GTN 625?

I know that VOR?s are slowly but surely going away. So, I?m really not as concerned about the navigational aspect of a Nav radio as I am its approach functions and importance. Is this a dying technology that?ll eventually be completely taken over by GPS? I understand that not all airports have a GPS approach, but more and more are coming on line every day.

So my question is more directed at technology and functionality, and not so much as to what type of approach a particular airport may or may not have. So just for arguments sake, and for simplistically, and with all things being equal, if you have the choice to make an ILS or GPS approach, which one would you typically make?

Thanks for any advice and guidance.

Mark
 
Need more information.

Are there GPS and ILS approaches to both runways, or would one require circling?
What's the weather?
Are they the same minimums?
If not, is the lower minimum within your personal minimums.

I'm silly, but having the tool you don't need is safer than not having the tool you DO need. So my #1 is a 430W and #2 is an SL-30.
 
Val Nav 2000

My interaction (several years ago now) with Jim after I bought the Val Nav 2000 has persuaded me to never buy anything else from Val Avionics. It was advertised to me as a direct drop in replacement for an SL30, but there are some things that were important to me that are not identical.

PS my needle swings upon tranmission as well....
 
I've installed a Nav 2000 and gotten it to work fine with a pair of G5's. I had problems with signal strength and interference initially with two different aviation NAV splitters. Once I switched over to the splitter Jim recommended, which is made by Mini Circuits, which also is what Garmin rebrands and uses, all my problems went away. The Mini Circuits splitter has a much better isolation spec than any of the common aviation splitters have.
 
Need more information.

Are there GPS and ILS approaches to both runways, or would one require circling?
What's the weather?
Are they the same minimums?
If not, is the lower minimum within your personal minimums.

I'm silly, but having the tool you don't need is safer than not having the tool you DO need. So my #1 is a 430W and #2 is an SL-30.

Well, due to the fact that I?m not IFR rated yet, It?s kind of hard for me to answer your specific questions/scenarios. I know that my question is very generic but without an IFR knowledge base to draw from I really couldn?t get specific...and that?s why I said ?with all things being equal?.

Once again, I?d really rather not install a Nav radio and if for no other reason it?ll be a retrofit and I really hate to start modifying my brand new panel. So, I guess from more of a technology/future standpoint, do you see Nav radios becoming less and less relevant?

And to add to my question, and maybe and easier way to answer it, is there anything (approach wise) that can be done with a Nav radio that you can?t do with a GPS, if flying that same approach, with the same weather, with your same personal minimums, etc. etc.? I?m sorry for not being able to get any more specific than that?s, but I?m just trying to see the big picture with my limited knowledge base.

Oh, BYW, I already have two GTR-20 remote mount coms and a brand new GTN 625, so an SL30 and or a 430W is out of the question. I?m also out of panel space so that?s why I was considering the Val 2000...it?s very thin. Maybe one day Garmin will come out with a remote mount Nav/Com radio....that would be ideal!!

Thanks,
Mark
 
FYI - SL30 is 0.3 inches taller than the VAL2000.

But for now, spend money flying on the IFR training, and then think about the panel.

The other thing you didn't mention is which GTN you've got. They come in three flavors. Did you get GPS only, GPS/COMM, or GPS/NAV/COMM?
 
FYI - SL30 is 0.3 inches taller than the VAL2000.

But for now, spend money flying on the IFR training, and then think about the panel.

The other thing you didn't mention is which GTN you've got. They come in three flavors. Did you get GPS only, GPS/COMM, or GPS/NAV/COMM?

So here?s my situation:

1. I?m currently building my new -7, so if I?m going to install/retrofit anything into my newly minted SteinAir panel it?s going to be now, not later.

2. Like I?d mentioned, I already have two GTR 20 remote mount coms, so I don?t want to go backwards (technology wise) and install an SL30. Also, I barely have enough room for the Val in the available space that I have, so even
.3? is a lot of real estate that I don?t have.

3. I have the GTN 625 which is the GPS only.

So like I?d said, I?m just trying to get a feel for the ?need? of a Nav radio from guys that fly IFR and in IMC all the time, but if I?m able to live without it, I will. My perspective may change later on once I have my rating, but for now I envision myself using my instrument rating and IFR capable airplane to primarily get in and out of the soup, but flying VFR in route or just out playing around.

Thanks,
Mark
 
Your GPS only approach will work just fine until one day you are imc and gps satellites are taken offline for testing or something...rare but STUFF happens and usually at the worst time. Then you will wish you had ability to shoot an ILS, LOC, or VOR approach.

I have a Val 2000 as a back up nav, pretty much only count on it for an ILS, LOC.
 
Your GPS only approach will work just fine until one day you are imc and gps satellites are taken offline for testing or something...rare but STUFF happens and usually at the worst time. Then you will wish you had ability to shoot an ILS, LOC, or VOR approach.

I have a Val 2000 as a back up nav, pretty much only count on it for an ILS, LOC.

Thanks Ryan! It?s good to know that the ?GPS only? approach will work for all phases of IFR/IMC navigation and that adding a Nav radio is more of a ?nice to have/increase in safety? piece of equipment. I think for now I?ll go ahead and at least wire in a wiring harness and run the coax and maybe even install the whisker antenna and then make the decision later on if/when to actually install the Nav radio. If I have everything ready to plug and play, the radio installation itself shouldn?t be all that difficult to do.

Mark
 
Mark,

I was in a similar position about a year ago as I began working on my instrument rating. I had installed a GTN 625 with my G3X system without a NAV radio. My instructor who is also a DPE informed me that a GPS only airplane was insufficient for the checkride and also would be limiting in filing for alternates when flying IFR. There has been discussion here that some examiners will do the checkride, but my instructor took it to the local FAA office and they said it would require me to do a nonprecision approach in another airplane. I decided to install a Val Nav2000 because it was the only Nav only radio I could find and I don?t want to redo my panel. I initially had a lot of reception issues as has been reported on this site. I eventually went with the whisker antennas on top of the VS. I would say at this point, the radio is good enough for training and maybe as a backup navigational aid if all else fails. The quality of the Val Nav is just not very good. I get interference when I transmit, the needle seems to wobble quite a bit, I can here FM radio when identifying a VOR and the range is just okay.

The bottom line, you probably need a Nav radio if you are going to do your instrument training in your plane. Talk it over with your instructor and possibly your examiner. For the radio, I cannot recommend the Val Nav2000, but it may be good enough. I wish I had something more high quality, but I have made it work.
 
Mark,

I was in a similar position about a year ago as I began working on my instrument rating. I had installed a GTN 625 with my G3X system without a NAV radio. My instructor who is also a DPE informed me that a GPS only airplane was insufficient for the checkride and also would be limiting in filing for alternates when flying IFR. There has been discussion here that some examiners will do the checkride, but my instructor took it to the local FAA office and they said it would require me to do a nonprecision approach in another airplane. I decided to install a Val Nav2000 because it was the only Nav only radio I could find and I don?t want to redo my panel. I initially had a lot of reception issues as has been reported on this site. I eventually went with the whisker antennas on top of the VS. I would say at this point, the radio is good enough for training and maybe as a backup navigational aid if all else fails. The quality of the Val Nav is just not very good. I get interference when I transmit, the needle seems to wobble quite a bit, I can here FM radio when identifying a VOR and the range is just okay.

The bottom line, you probably need a Nav radio if you are going to do your instrument training in your plane. Talk it over with your instructor and possibly your examiner. For the radio, I cannot recommend the Val Nav2000, but it may be good enough. I wish I had something more high quality, but I have made it work.

Thanks a lot Mark for that report, that was very informative. I really wish that the remote mount Val would work with the G3x touch, but I guess it?s a no-go. I have such a nice panel that I really hate to cut into it to fit the Val 2000. Almost any way that I mount it, it?ll look like an after thought. If I get one I may initially try and come up with a temporary mount under the panel so that I can remove it if I?m not satisfied with its performance after I?m finished with my training. In real life day to day operations, do you find that you ever really use it?....or do you primarily use your 625?

Thanks again,
Mark
 
Have you considered trading/selling your 625 to the GPS/COM/NAV version and selling one of your remote comms?

It shouldn't involve defacing your panel, and ian Archer wingtip antenna keeps you from defacing your VS.

Not sure how the dollars work out.
 
Have you considered trading/selling your 625 to the GPS/COM/NAV version and selling one of your remote comms?

It shouldn't involve defacing your panel, and ian Archer wingtip antenna keeps you from defacing your VS.

Not sure how the dollars work out.

Yeah, I?d actually thought about that in the beginning when I was designing my panel. I guess I?d kind of convinced myself that I?d never really want/need a Nav radio. When I bought the G3x package I was able to get a great price on the GTN 625. I?m still ahead...money wise...with the equipment that I have, but I certainly wouldn?t be struggling with the questions that I have now if I?d went the GTN 650 route. I think in the end everything will work out just fine and I think that I?ll find that I?ll end up using GPS based IFR navigation 90% of the time. So, I think the plan...at least for the time being...is to go with the Val and mount it in a ?temporary fashion?. If I find that it?s something that I really use, I?ll either mount it permanently or maybe upgrading to a GTN 650. Really, the ideal scenario would be if Garmin would come out with either a remote mount Nav/Com radio or, even better yet, a stand-alone remote mount Nav radio.

Mark
 
Mark,

I wanted to try the Val Nav2000 before I cut it into the panel as well. I put it in a temporary spot under the panel as you can see in this picture.
32462761067_1b1730115f_b.jpg

It's still there. The location actually is a convenient spot. Even though almost all my real world IFR will be GPS, I don't plan on getting rid of it as a backup. Maybe someday I will take the time to move things around and mount it in the panel with the rest of the stack. (.....and maybe not.)
 
Mark,

I wanted to try the Val Nav2000 before I cut it into the panel as well. I put it in a temporary spot under the panel as you can see in this picture.
32462761067_1b1730115f_b.jpg

It's still there. The location actually is a convenient spot. Even though almost all my real world IFR will be GPS, I don't plan on getting rid of it as a backup. Maybe someday I will take the time to move things around and mount it in the panel with the rest of the stack. (.....and maybe not.)

Very nice! That?s exactly how I?m thinking about mounting mine. For a permanent placement I was thinking about cutting into the panel right under the G3x PFD screen.

Mark
 
I started this thread after I went down the exact same road with my rv-6. Garmin offers the 625 at a great price and in the end you spend less money, but more time and headaches with the install. Valnav blames it on my install, but almost everyone else has the exact same issue. Key the mic and the course guidance dances. Im going with the 650 in my new project to avoid these issues again. For now, it'll stay in the RV as a last resort backup.
 
Thanks Shane. So were you able to get most of the problems worked out? Rocket Bob said that he was able to get things smoothed out by using ?Mini Circuits? splitters. What all different things did you try to iron out the issues?

Mark
 
I don't have any splitters in the system. Straight from a Rami mounted under the tail section of the fuse, through a balun, straight to the val nav. The coax doesn't run anywhere near the comm coax which is all rg400. Prior to the val I had a kx-155 in its place which worked flawlessly. I quit putting resources into it after seeing how many others had the same issues. I know its limitations and will only use it in those extreme cases.

I've spent enough time and frustration to see the issues that plague the lower end avionics and radios in the market. Same reason I'll never buy MGL products again after I and everyone I know with their radios saw the same issues and we were always told "installation errors."(same as valnav said) In the end the garmin stuff is better engineered and tested and provides a more probable outcome of success.
 
Yeah, I?d actually thought about that in the beginning when I was designing my panel. I guess I?d kind of convinced myself that I?d never really want/need a Nav radio.
Mark

Flying IFR you will never want/need a Nav radio; until, that is, the day comes when you're in the clouds and the military decides to jam the gps signals. Or your panel mount 625 up and dies. Then, the nav/com will be priceless. Truth is, you only need one EFIS - along as it always works. But are you willing to risk your life on that? A huge part of the IFR cost is carrying along expensive stuff, "just in case". Only you can decide how much is enough, to meet your risk tolerance.
BTW, the SL-30 is still, IMHO, the best nav* ever made. But I understand parts are getting hard to find, so they're on their way out. A real shame.

*The SL30 could actually receive two VOR's (or an ILS and a VOR) at the same time.
 
Flying IFR you will never want/need a Nav radio; until, that is, the day comes when you're in the clouds and the military decides to jam the gps signals. Or your panel mount 625 up and dies. Then, the nav/com will be priceless. Truth is, you only need one EFIS - along as it always works. But are you willing to risk your life on that? A huge part of the IFR cost is carrying along expensive stuff, "just in case". Only you can decide how much is enough, to meet your risk tolerance.
BTW, the SL-30 is still, IMHO, the best nav* ever made. But I understand parts are getting hard to find, so they're on their way out. A real shame.

*The SL30 could actually receive two VOR's (or an ILS and a VOR) at the same time.

Roger that! I?m sure I?ll be installing the Val for that ?just in case? situation. I like the way Mark H mounted his under the panel. It?s still easy to access but he didn?t cut into his panel to mount it. Hopefully one day Garmin will come out with a remote mount Nav/Com...or just a Nav radio that?ll be a plug and play with the G3x system.
 
I know I?m in the minority on this subject, but I don?t believe backups should be remote mounted. When the chips are down, you don?t want loss of the main efis to make your backups unusable too.
 
I know I’m in the minority on this subject, but I don’t believe backups should be remote mounted. When the chips are down, you don’t want loss of the main efis to make your backups unusable too.

That’s a good point.

Garmin’s CAN bus keeps working because there is no master but anything connected to the dead EFIS via RS232 or BlueTooth goes away. Be mindful of that as you are selecting equipment.
 
Don't forget the MGL Avionics N-16 nav radio. Depending on what else is in your panel, it might be an excellent alternative.
 
I haven't flown GA since 1982 and only 82 hours then. But flying 121 we are trained in (at least the airlines I worked for) "overlay" approaches, and flying non-precision approaches using LNAV/VNAV, but monitoring the raw data for the approach.

With 2020 requirement for a WAAS gps, things get interesting. The WAAS gps for ADSB doesn't qualify as a navigator for approaches because they don't notify when the GPS signal is weak or unreliable. But I can't see why you can't do it and just monitor the raw data.

Will the 2020 WAAS GPS be valid for enroute navigation, point to point? If so I can see a whole bunch of capability by just adding a NAV radio for monitoring raw data. Plus you have a backup if you need it.

This is a question, not a statement.
 
I haven't flown GA since 1982 and only 82 hours then. But flying 121 we are trained in (at least the airlines I worked for) "overlay" approaches, and flying non-precision approaches using LNAV/VNAV, but monitoring the raw data for the approach.

With 2020 requirement for a WAAS gps, things get interesting. The WAAS gps for ADSB doesn't qualify as a navigator for approaches because they don't notify when the GPS signal is weak or unreliable. But I can't see why you can't do it and just monitor the raw data.

Will the 2020 WAAS GPS be valid for enroute navigation, point to point? If so I can see a whole bunch of capability by just adding a NAV radio for monitoring raw data. Plus you have a backup if you need it.

This is a question, not a statement.

The 2020 adsb gps boxes only know current data - they lack the huge ifr database. But you can always use it for general awareness, as long as officially you’re tracking an approved nav source. And, GRT is using its adsb gps plus an ifr database within its HX and HXr EFIS to generate non-TSO’d gps approach capability.
Edit added: 25 years ago people were using simple gps units for ‘position awareness’ to greatly simplify and improve accuracy on NDB approaches.
 
Last edited:
BTW, the SL-30 is still, IMHO, the best nav* ever made. But I understand parts are getting hard to find, so they're on their way out. A real shame.

*The SL30 could actually receive two VOR's (or an ILS and a VOR) at the same time.

I agree with you - the SL30 (originally from Apollo) was an excellent NAV radio. But if I may just enter a little plug here: The N16 Nav radio costs a small fraction, and also does two VOR or one VOR and one ILS (including glide slope). And it "speaks" SL30 tongue, among other dialects - but is fully useful on its own via its display(s) even if not connected to an EFIS.
Adding a NAV radio certainly has never been cheaper and it boasts some impressive performance too...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
I agree with you - the SL30 (originally from Apollo) was an excellent NAV radio. But if I may just enter a little plug here: The N16 Nav radio costs a small fraction, and also does two VOR or one VOR and one ILS (including glide slope). And it "speaks" SL30 tongue, among other dialects - but is fully useful on its own via its display(s) even if not connected to an EFIS.
Adding a NAV radio certainly has never been cheaper and it boasts some impressive performance too...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Rainier,

I look at your N16 and unless I?m missed something it appears to require a control head. Is there any way to connect it directly to the G3x touch EFIS and control it via the G3x? The problem I?m having is that I?m out of panel space real estate.

Thanks,
Mark
 
Hey Mark,

Can you post up a drawing of your panel?

Hey Rob,

Can you PM you?re email address to me? I can fly an airplane but I can?t figure out how to post pictures on this forum. If you?ll forward your email address to me I?ll send you a picture and you can post it for me if you don?t mind.

Thanks!
Mark
 
Rainier,

I look at your N16 and unless I?m missed something it appears to require a control head. Is there any way to connect it directly to the G3x touch EFIS and control it via the G3x? The problem I?m having is that I?m out of panel space real estate.

Thanks,
Mark

Yes it requires at least one control head if you need it to talk "SL30". As with the real SL30 you need a panel to setup basics, so it is no different.
The head takes care of providing the RS232 port for the comms to EFIS systems. You could argue that you don't really need it once everything is setup so you could mount it out of the way.

The exception to all of this is if you are using a MGL EFIS - the MGL can talk to the N16 directly and "knows" how to do the basic setups and controls. You do not need any head in this case but can still install them if you want.

Further to this - there is no limit to the number of heads you can connect.

The protocol required to directly drive the N16 has been placed in public domain so anybody can use it. It's quite simple and has been done in a way the EFIS does not have to have intimate knowledge on how the N16 works. The protocol has been documented both for the CAN bus as well as RS232.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
With "mounting the N16 head out of the way" I mean that - it does not have to be in the panel or even accessible.
You will use it once to setup the N16 - mostly the audio side and what kind of protocol you want to use (SL30 most likely). Since you can select everything else via the EFIS you do not need any further access to the head. It does not even have a power switch - neither has the N16 - both are usually switched via a suitable breaker.
Once you have setup your nav radio the head is used as simple interface that translates your EFIS's SL30 link to the N16 native protocol.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
With "mounting the N16 head out of the way" I mean that - it does not have to be in the panel or even accessible.
You will use it once to setup the N16 - mostly the audio side and what kind of protocol you want to use (SL30 most likely). Since you can select everything else via the EFIS you do not need any further access to the head. It does not even have a power switch - neither has the N16 - both are usually switched via a suitable breaker.
Once you have setup your nav radio the head is used as simple interface that translates your EFIS's SL30 link to the N16 native protocol.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Thank you Rainier for all of the good information. I?ll definitely go back and study the N16 a little closer to see if it?ll fit my application. Oh, BTW, does it come with a wiring harness or is that separate?...or would I need to make up my own?

Thanks again!
Mark
 
N-16...one Razor VS. two Vegas

Rainier,

I went to the MGL website and was reading up on the N-16 along with the Vega and Razor control heads. One thing thing that I'm a little unclear on is which control head will I need? The MGL literature references using two Vegas or one Razor. With regards to the remote mount installation that I'm trying accomplish and wanting the G3x to control everything once the initial N-16 setup is performed, which control head can I get by with? Can I do the required setup with one Vega...or do I need the Razor if I'm wanting to do that setup with one control head. Once again, I'm hoping to mount everything remotely and use my G3x touch to control everything.

Thanks,
Mark
 
If you are going to use an EFIS as your primary interface to the radio (i.e. set frequencies, see CDI, radials etc) you only need a single Vega head so you can setup the N16 (view it as your interface to gain access to the various setups in the N16 and things like volume level, ID and Voice filters etc). Usually these kind of setups ore done once and then just left.

The suggestion to use two Vega control units is based on the assumption you do not have an EFIS connected. In this case it makes sense as you may want to use one Vega dedicated to the primary frequency and another to the secondary. On the N16 both frequencies are equivalent in performance. This is a bit different to the SL30 where the secondary frequency is just a monitor (Used for VOR with reduced resolution and accuracy - most of the receiver bandwidth is used for the primary).

The Razor has a large enough screen so you can easily use just a single Razor for both NAV frequencies - and if you have a V16 connected as well you will use it for COM as well (i.e. main/standby COM and two NAV at the same time).

Having said all that - there is no limit as to how many heads and what type you can connect - just pile them on as you like. You might have a tandem seater and want displays front and rear - COM and NAV perhaps.

It's both low cost and flexible so you can construct something that is exactly right for your mission.

We do not produce harnesses at the factory but the MGL guys in California do ready made harnesses for those that do not want to construct their own.

Since the V16/N16/A16 all run on a common CAN bus things are pretty simple to wire up so most here do their own harnesses.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Back
Top